April 11, 2012

Cautionary Tales from the Campaign Trail

WASHINGTON—Despite the level of international
interest generated by American politics, there is a surprisingly meager
tradition of commentary on the subject by outside observers actually
read by Americans, flowing from Alexis de Tocqueville to Alistair Cooke.
And yet every U.S. presidential election is also a global election.
Four years ago, speculation as to whether Barack Obama, John McCain, or
Hillary Clinton was preferable as an American leader went far beyond
official circles in such capitals as Baghdad, Berlin, Brasilia, and
Beijing, to living rooms, schools, and cafés from Mazar-e-Sharif to
Marseilles and Montreal to Mumbai.

This year’s election has yet to generate a similar level of
attention, because it is far less open or potentially groundbreaking.
Still, misconceptions about the electoral process and U.S. political
dynamics abound. As Mitt Romney appears set to seal his position as the
Republican Party’s presidential candidate after his main rival Rick
Santorum suspended his campaign yesterday, it may be worthwhile taking
stock of some of the common errors made in popular commentary about U.S.
presidential elections.

One of the most striking aspects about the 2012 election cycle so far
has been the exaggerated influence attributed to certain groups and
individuals. The mid-term elections in the U.S. Congress two years ago
witnessed the arrival of the Tea Party, a movement that channeled
popular dissatisfaction with tax increases, entitlement reform, and
foreign wars to oust or threaten many long-term incumbents. Yet this
year, the leading Republican candidates boasted competitively of their
high income taxes. Admittedly, the remarkable success of Congressman Ron
Paul — once considered a fringe member of his party — can at least
partly be ascribed to his role in the Tea Party movement. But the
presumed Republican presidential candidate has succeeded without Tea
Party support this year.

Similarly, the former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah
Palin — widely expected to be, if not a candidate herself, then at least
a key power broker — has exerted little influence on the outcome of her
party’s primaries. Various influential right-wing media commentators
have also found themselves marginalized as Republican Party stalwarts
have opted to rally behind Romney, a technocratic former governor of
Democratic-leaning Massachusetts.

Premature attempts at divining the outcome of November’s election are
another common source of errors. Many commentators — both in the United
States and abroad — were convinced in mid-2011 that Obama’s chances of
re-election were slim. At the time, unemployment figures and oil prices
were both high and the president’s popularity rating was at an all-time
low. But with the economy showing signs of recovery, and Obama faring
well in head-to-head polls against Romney, the narrative has rapidly
reversed.

And yet it is uncertain how long such sentiments will last. It is
hard not to recall the example of 2008. Many forget now that John McCain
had looked primed to win the election in August of that year. But by
October — after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the U.S. economic
downturn — Obama’s victory seemed all but certain. Republican and
Democratic national conventions, which take place in the summer before a
presidential election, have also historically shaped popular opinion in
meaningful ways. And so the outcome of this year’s election will likely
only be decided after August.

A final misconception about U.S. presidential elections by external
observers involves exaggerating the role of international affairs in
determining the final results. This is entirely understandable. It is
natural to impose one’s own prisms and be concerned about how the
election affects one’s own interests and fortunes. But the foreign
policy dynamics of this election promise to be even less pronounced than
in past editions. While Republicans have usually emphasized their
strong national security credentials, their efforts this year will in
part be blunted by Obama’s handling of several simultaneous wars and his
ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. Romney,
given his own lack of military experience and limited national security
credentials, has also sought to portray himself more as America’s CEO
than its Commander-in-Chief.

Of course, the Obama administration’s Iran policy and its support for
cuts to the defense budget will come under heavy criticism from the
Romney campaign, but such arguments are likely to be superseded by other
pressing concerns. American voters will, in essence, be confronted with
a choice as to which Harvard alumnus can better manage the U.S.
government and economy at a time of spiraling debt, competing
priorities, and diverse challenges. All politics are local, as the
saying goes — but this election could well be more local than most.